Δευτέρα, 23 Νοεμβρίου 2015

Corneliu
Pintilescu, “The interrogation stages, strategies, and techniques of the
SECURITATE (1948-1964). Case study: The Cluj regional directorate for the
security of the people”, (Remembrance in
time, Transilvania University Press of Brasov 2012), pp. 131-136.

The topic of the present study has been approached in numerous works and
articles on the justice system as an instrument of political repression and
manipulation in the communist regimes. One can mention here the already classic
works of authors, such as F. Beck, W. Godin, Annie Kriegel, George Hodos and
Robert Conquest, who approach the great show trials from the time of the “Great
Terror” and the similar trials from Eastern Europe from 1948-1964.2 Apart from
focusing on the great “show trials,” another feature of these works is their
use of mainly press sources as well as witness and victim accounts. Only after
the political changes from 1989 did researchers have access to the archives of
the former USSR (less to the judicial archives however). From among the works
that were the result of this opening, one can mention those of Michael Ellman,
David L. Hoffmann, Roberta T. Manning and Elizabeth A. Wood.3 The opening of
the archives of the former USSR was limited however. That is why these
important works on the justice system as an instrument of repression in the
Communist Bloc did not contain an analysis also from the perspective of the
files based on which the respective trials were held. The present study tries
to fill this historiographic gap. It will analyze the interrogation stages of
the Securitate as well as the strategies and techniques that this oppressive
institution widely used based on the source material from the criminal files
held in the archives of the National Council for the Study of the Archives of
the Securitate (NCSAS), which are related to the activity of the Cluj Military
Tribunal between 1948 and 1964, as well as the interviews with victims and
witnesses of the studied trials. Through strategies we understand the ways in
which the inquiry was organized and developed of the inquiry in order to
concoct a political criminal felony according to the existing legislation.The interrogation is the central piece in the criminal
inquiry of the Securitate.

The confessions obtained during the
interrogation provide the essential data that are manipulated during the course
of the trial. The material evidence and witness confessions were many times of
secondary importance. The structure of the Securitate contained a special
directorate called “Criminal investigations,” whose prerogative was the
investigation of political crimes and their prosecution in court.4

The inquest strategy was closely connected
to the centralized organization of the Securitate. An order of the General
Directorate for the Security of the People (GDSP)5 from Bucharest to the Cluj
Regional Directorate of the Security of the People demanded explanations for
the arrests made without permission from the GDSP.6 This document is one of the
many proving that key-moments in an investigation, such as its initiation or
the arrest of suspects, depended on approval from the centre. Moreover, due the
nature of its rapports with the lower structures, the GDSP exercised tight
control over the evolution of the investigation in general and the
interrogation in particular. An order of the GDSP dated August 17, 1951,
demanded from the Cluj Regional Securitate the arrest of a suspect, his
interrogation according to a questionnaire attached to the order, and the
dispatch of a copy of the obtained statement to Bucharest.7 A month before,
they had received a similar order demanding what kind of facts the
investigation must establish upon completion. In this case, the main fact that
the investigators had to establish was “the counterrevolutionary religious
activities [of the suspects].”8 The information on local events was
successively transmitted from the county to the regional and then central
level, by means of regular reports. Based on these reports, the GDSP decided on
the initiation of an investigation concerning certain suspects. According to
the received information, the Bucharest center decided on the arrest of the
suspects or the interruption of the investigation. The importance of the GDSP
in the development of criminal investigations was partly determined by the fact
that it centralized the data collected from all over the country. That is why
the local sections depended on the information provided by the Bucharest
center. The GDSP benefited from this position and coordinated interrogations by
means of its orders and guidance. In certain cases, the guidance of an
investigation touched on details, by the dispatch of elaborated questionnaires
for the suspects as well as information on the persons of interest and
instructions on how investigators had to carry out their tasks.9

The used questionnaires clearly reveal the
stages of the interrogation. They were lists of pre-established questions that
later shaped the confessions of suspects. Without these questionnaires, which
meant to guide suspects during the process of the establishment of their
political guilt, the self-accusing statements given under duress risked being
contradictory. Even so, the mixture of truth and fiction revealed
contradictions that were later invoked in appeals. The effect of questionnaires
was the standardization of statements in case the investigation targeted a
group of suspects. If the investigators noticed discrepancies among certain
pieces of information, they organized a confrontation in which all the suspects
with divergent statements participated. The confrontation report signed by the
participants confirmed the final version. The fact that most of the
investigations usually targeted a group instead of an individual rendered the
interrogation a complex action in need of a strategy. The officer leading the
investigation at the local level was entrusted with the application of the
strategy through the coordination of the

group of investigators that worked on the case. The strategy determined
the stages of the interrogation. In the preliminary phase, having an
introductory character, the Securitate investigators asked a set of general
questions through which they were investigating some leads on the political
activity of the suspects and their possible crimes against the regime. These
broad questions usually were: “What kind of subversive activities did you carry
out against the regime?” or “What counterrevolutionary activities did you carry
out?” This type of questions indicates the investigators’ intention to feel out
the situation.10 Investigators requested suspects to submit autobiographic
accounts and lists of acquaintances in order to make their general evaluation.

The starting point for any interrogation
was the presumption of guilt. Since a person was under investigation by the
Securitate meant that his/her guilt was self-evident. The only aspect left to
be established was the kind of crime he/she committed, under what
circumstances, and in what way. The questions asked as well as the concepts
used during the interrogation undoubtedly prove that the Securitate conducted
its investigation according to the existing penal legislation as well. Further
evidence in this regard is the investigators’ stubborn efforts to give the
offenses of suspects a political character – even if it was fictitious – in
order to be able to prosecute them according to the legal provisions of the
Romanian Penal Code. The aim of the interrogation was not the pursuit of truth,
but the construction of a political guilt, which implied the commission of
offenses that the regime valorized negatively from a political point of view
and artificially connected to criminal offenses stipulated in the Penal Code.

In the second stage of the interrogation,
the investigators pursued certain leads according to the existing repressive
policy and the information they had. They focused on the thorough investigation
of these leads through the selection and accumulation of as many incriminating
evidence as possible. The leading investigator issued guidelines concerning the
separate investigation of the suspects after careful analysis of the biographic
data and psychological profile of each of them. Those considered vulnerable
from a biographical point of view or psychologically instable were subjected to
intense pressure until they broke. Upon finishing the inquiry on the activity
of the suspect, the investigators extended their investigation over the
suspect’s acquaintances. Thus, they obtained incriminating statements on other
people as well. This strategy assured the contamination of those who abetted or
kept in contact with the suspect. In the third stage, the investigators
synthesized the obtained confessions. The most important document was the final
report of the investigation written by the leading investigating officer. Apart
from the synthesis of all the obtained statements, this document gave new
meanings to the deeds described in the statements, established the commission
or non-commission of certain crimes, and decided for or against sending the
case further for prosecution in a court of law. Although the existing
legislation clearly stipulated that the establishment of an individual’s guilt
or innocence was the prerogative of the courts of law, the aforementioned final
reports of the Securitate already reached the verdict. These reports had a
standard ending note saying: “In conclusion [...] they are

guilty of …”11

Most of the trials from 1948-1964, whose
aim was to legalize terror, involved groups of individuals. The individual
trial of politically undesirable was a rare occurrence. This is why the
investigation in general and the interrogation in particular targeted groups of
individuals. The collective investigation of the repression subjects presented
a number of advantages. The first was the efficiency of the investigation and
sentencing process of an impressive number of individuals. The second advantage
was that guilt was easier constructed through the reciprocal contamination of
those involved. Collective guilt had additional seriousness and popular impact.
A crime committed by a group of individuals, to whom the investigators added an
organized character, became more serious that a crime committed individually.

The need for the collective treatment of
subjects had a strong influence on the interrogation techniques. The
investigation of a group of individuals meant the involvement of an entire team
of investigators. The team was lead by a leading investigation officer, who
centralized the results and forwarded them to his superiors by means of
reports. The isolation of the suspects from the same group was recommended in
order to avoid their fraternization and access to information pertaining to the
case.

Suspects were usually held in custody in
detention cells in the Securitate buildings. However, due to the limited space,
their recommended isolation was difficult to put into practice. It became
easier when there was a penitentiary nearby, where the suspects could be held
in isolation. In order to prevent suspects from knowing the location of their
detention place and communicating among themselves during transport, they were
blindfolded with special tin glasses.

In order to break the resistance of
suspects and obtain their self-incriminating statements, the Securitate made
recourse to physical and psychological pressures. The alternation and dosage of
these pressures is a fact that many victims noted in their later testimonies.12
Physical pressures did not involve only torture, which is one of the most
frequent elements in the memoirs of former political prisoners, but also food
and sleep deprivation, which led to the weakening of the suspects’ organism and
obviously his resistance capacity. The use of torture was a two-edged weapon
because after the signing of the self-incriminating statements the suspects recanted
them. In certain cases, the suspect’s vacillation between admitting and
recanting these statements undermined the result of the investigation. Here is
an example of a piece of evidence that becameunusable by the prosecution: “I
admit that until January 25, 1950, I had not admitted to what Captain Desagă
said about me, and on January 25 I said I had admitted only for fear of
torture.”13

We will not insist on the torture
techniques because this topic has been very well covered both in memoirs and
the historical research. In many cases, the use of torture was unnecessary
because the psychological methods, such as threats and blackmail, proved their
efficiency. The psychological methods for the obtaining of confessions were
based on a system of collecting and organizing information on the people who
came under the scrutiny of the Securitate. During the investigation, the
personal file of the suspect comprised a picture, personal data, the
“identification elements,” “prior offenses,” “the result of the house search,”
“the information resulting from his [and other peoples’] statements,”
“confrontations,” “personal descriptions,” “conclusions,” and “proposals.”14

According to the biographical data and the
description, guidelines were issued as to the manner in which the suspects
would be approached during the interrogation. Descriptions were short and tried
to note the weak points of the suspect. Based on the information gathered from
the suspects in custody, the leading investigation officer together with his
superiors decided on which suspects the investigation should focus as well as
on the manner in which the interrogation would be conducted. A note of the Cluj
Regional Directorate for the Security of the People (CRDSP) to the GDSP in
Bucharest, dated July 29, 1952 and referring to an investigation, made an
evaluation of the interrogation work and put forward proposals.

Those who showed resistance during the
course of the investigation were proposed for internment in “work units,”15
because they were considered “dangerous elements,” those who fell into the trap
of the blackmail of the Securitate became informants, and those who confessed
to their guilt were further investigated in view of their trial in a court of
law.16

Manipulation was another method that was
successfully used to obtain selfincriminating statements. Those who came into
contact with the Securitate for the first time were unaware of its tricks. The
investigation could begin in a non-violent and persuasive manner. The suspect
was assured that he was brought in only for some routine questions. This way,
the investigators obtained from the suspect confessions that in his view were
not serious, such as the listening to Western radio stations and the voicing of
critical remarks on the policy of the government or the Soviet Union.

By starting from apparently unimportant
details, the Securitate managed to construct - by means of additions,
exaggerations, and reinterpretations – seriouscounterrevolutionary crimes.
Another manipulation method was to make suspects believe that the Securitate
knew everything on their life and they could not hide anything away from it.
For instance, suspects were surprised by the mentioning of certain details from
their personal life, which convinced them that the Securitate knew everything
about them and resistance was futile. Furthermore, investigators made full use
of the frictions that appeared within a group of suspects. In order to break
the solidarity of the group, investigators would show to some suspects the
damaging statements that the other suspects made on them or would promise their
release or a lighter sentence in exchange of cooperation.

In conclusion, we underline that the
interrogation strategies of the Securitate were influenced by its centralized
way of functioning. In practice, this meant that the lower echelons of the
Securitate gathered the information and sent it further to the higher echelons
that centralized it at the regional or national level, took the important
decisions concerning ongoing investigations, and offered guidelines on the
manner in which these decisions had to be implemented at the local level.
Although the evolution of interrogations varied from case to case, we can use
three stages as a theoretical model in the analysis of an interrogation: a
first stage when the accumulation of information was achieved horizontally
(this stage began before the arrest), a second stage when, following certain
options, the interrogation focused on certain suspects and issues, and a third
stage when the investigating officers synthesized the obtained data and gave
them coherence. For the obtaining of self-incriminating statements, physical
and psychological pressures were used. Although physical torture is the most
recurrent method mentioned in memoirs, there are many cases in which
manipulation and blackmail proved sufficient. When comparing the methods of the
Securitate with those of other security agencies from the Communist Bloc, we
note the similarity among them. The creation of the Securitate according to the
Soviet model and with the assistance of Soviet councilors is the explanation
for the existence of these similarities.